CAPITULO 4. DISCUSIÓN
4. Resultados en negociaciones interculturales e intraculturales
Respondents were asked to indicate their adoption or non-adoption of ten innovations and briefly comment on their decisions. All ten innovations were trialled by the LUDF between 2001 and 2012. Three innovations had high levels of adoption (71-83 per cent), two innovations had medium levels of adoption (57-64 per cent) and the remaining five had low levels of adoption (21-42 per cent) (Table 4.27). A description of each innovation and a summary of respondents’ comments regarding their decisions to adopt or not adopt are presented below.
Table 4.27 Levels of adoption of FMP innovations
FMP innovation Per cent
Adopted
Per cent
Not adopted
Low and consistent grazing residuals(n = 112) 83 17 Re-grassing based on measurement of poor performing
paddocks (n = 111) 81 19
Regular monitoring of cow body condition and responding with
alternative management to ensure targets are achieved (n = 109) 71 29 Monitoring of soil moisture to drive irrigation practice (n = 111) 64 36 Creating a separate herd of young cows to enable preferential stock
management to ensure targets are achieved (n = 111) 57 43 Pre-grazing mowing to lift animal intake (n = 113) 42 58
Zero induction policy (n = 113) 40 60
Frequent small application of N and gibberellic acid simultaneously
to promote on-farm production of high quality pasture (n = 111) 39 61 Eco-nTM to mitigate urine N loss (n = 110) 33 67
4.4.2.1 Low and consistent grazing residuals (Graze)
Grazing residual refers to the residual pasture remaining in a paddock after grazing. Some studies (Irvine, Freeman & Rawnley, 2010; Lee, Donaghy & Roche, 2008; Holmes & Hoogendoorn, 1983)have suggested that maintaining low and consistent grazing residuals (approximately 1500-1650 kg dry matter (DM)/ha) can lead to improved pasture quality and increased milk production. Eighty three per cent of respondents adopted this innovation (Table 4.27). Of the 112 respondents, 69
respondents (61 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.28).
Table 4.28 Reasons for adopting/not adopting low and consistent grazing residuals Reasons for adopting (n=56) Reasons for not adopting (n=13) Improved pasture quality, utilisation
and/or pasture production 36 Did not suit current farming system 8 Always followed this practice 9 Cows would be inadequately fed 3 Improved pasture management 8
Other 3 Other 2
Number of respondents 56 Number of respondents 13
4.4.2.2 Re-grassing based on measurement of poor performing paddocks (Re-grass)
Re-grassing refers to the process of pasture renewal. Measurement of pasture production (typically in kg of DM produced per ha per year) is used to identify low producing or poor performing paddocks which may benefit most from renewal i.e. provide the greatest return on investment. Eighty one per cent of respondents adopted re-grassing based on measurement (Table 4.27). Of the 111
respondents, 60 respondents (54 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.29). Table 4.29 Reasons for adopting/not adopting re-grassing based on measurement of poor
performing paddocks
Reasons for adopting (n=41) Reasons for not adopting (n=19) Increased pasture quality and
production 14
Used different means of identifying paddocks i.e. visual assessment, grass species, pugging damage, palatability
12 Common sense, was logical or made
financial sense 13 Did not measure pasture 3
Entered their annual re-grassing percentage
6 Lack of good information/good record
keeping 2
Always followed this practice 4 Factored re-grassing into their winter
cropping programme 3
Other 1 Other 2
4.4.2.3 Regular monitoring of cow body condition and responding with alternative
management to ensure targets are achieved (CowBCS)
Body condition score (BCS) is a useful management tool for assessing the nutritional status of cows (Garnsworthy, 2006). Poor body condition has been associated with subnormal milk production and reproductive performance. Seventy one per cent of respondents adopted regular monitoring of cow body condition and responded with alternative management to ensure their targets were achieved (Table 4.27). Of the 109 respondents, 60 respondents (55 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.30).
Table 4.30 Reasons for adopting/not adopting regular monitoring of cow body condition and responding with alternative management to ensure targets are achieved
Reasons for adopting (n=45) Reasons for not adopting (n=15) Adopted but only at critical times of the
year, typically before mating and drying off 21 All cows were adequately fed 4 Always followed this practice 9 Logistics, poor organisation 4 Improved herd mating and production
performance
8
Too difficult, uneconomic 4 Used once a day milking or drying light cows
off early 7
Unaware of this innovation Other
1 2 Number of respondents 45 Number of respondents 15
4.4.2.4 Monitoring of soil moisture to drive irrigation practice (Soilmoist)
Monitoring of soil moisture provides data which can help optimise resource efficiency. The LUDF uses AQUAFLEX sensors to monitor soil moisture levels. The AQUAFLEX sensors are three metre long flexible tapes that are laid in the root zone and measure soil moisture and temperature (Streat Instruments, 2013). Sixty four per cent of respondents adopted monitoring of soil moisture to drive irrigation practice (Table 4.27). Of the 111 respondents, 60 respondents (55 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.31).
Table 4.31 Reasons for adopting/not adopting monitoring of soil moisture to drive irrigation practice
Reasons for adopting (n=45) Reasons for not adopting (n=15) Increased resource efficiencies (water and
power) and provided an economic return 22
Did not believe in the effectiveness of this innovation/too expensive 10 Used AQUAFLEX technology to monitor
moisture 7
Did not suit their current farming
system (e.g. no irrigation) 5 Did monitor soil moisture but used
alternative methods (spade, electric fence standard, monitoring of rainfall, farm experience, neighbours, gut feel)
11
Other 5
Number of respondents 45 Number of respondents 15
4.4.2.5 Creating a separate herd of young cows to enable preferential management
(2herds)
Fifty seven per cent of respondents adopted the creation of a separate herd of young cows to enable preferential stock management when required to ensure targets were achieved (Table 4.27). Of the 111 respondents, 60 respondents (54 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.32).
Table 4.32 Reasons for adopting/not adopting creating a separate herd of young cows Reasons for adopting (n=35) Reasons for not adopting (n=25) Improved cow body condition and conception
rates
18 Did not suit current farm system (labour constraints, staff capability, logistics, small herd size, large herd size already with multiple herds)
19
Always followed this practice 8 All cows were being adequately fed 6 Preferentially fed herd but include any at
risk cow regardless of age
7 Run two herds but due to logistic, i.e. small
yard size
2
4.4.2.6 Pre-grazing mowing to lift animal intake (Premow)
Forty two per cent of respondents adopted pre-grazing mowing (Table 4.27). Out of the 113 respondents, 66 respondents (58 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.33). Table 4.33 Reasons for adopting/not adopting pre-grazing mowing to lift animal intakes
Reasons for adopting (n= 29) Reasons for not adopting (n= 37) Only when necessary and for pasture quality
rather than to increase animal intake
24
Uneconomic (repairs, fuel, labour) 15 Always followed this practice 2 Did not suit their current farm
system (rough or stony land, high/low stocking rate, feed supply, farm owner/staff attitudes)
10
Maximise intake 3
Time constraints 6
Mow after grazing (topping) 2
Other 4
Number of respondents 29 Number of respondents 37
4.4.2.7 Zero induction policy (Noinduct)
Calving induction is the practice of pharmaceutically inducing premature calving. It is generally done during the third trimester of pregnancy on cows with a late calving due date (typically later than eight weeks into the seasonal calving period) with little risk to the cow but often with reduced viability of the early calf (Animal Health Australia, 2013; Blackwell, Burke & Verkerk, 2010). Forty per cent of respondents adopted a zero induction policy (Table 4.27). Of the 113 respondents, 67 respondents (59 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.34).
Table 4.34 Reasons for adopting/not adopting a zero induction policy
Reasons for adopting (n= 22) Reasons for not adopting (n= 45) Practiced zero induction for past 2-12 years 7 Considered a useful management tool
to reduce cull cow numbers, condense calving and/or grow cow numbers
26 Felt inductions were unnatural 6
Did not need to or considered it poor practice 4 Could not financially afford to 7 Had never induced cows 3 Adhered to industry guidelines
governing the use of induction
7 Animal welfare concerns 2
Actively reducing use of induction and planning to implement a zero
induction policy in the near future
5 Number of respondents 22 Number of respondents 45
4.4.2.8 Frequent small applications of nitrogen fertiliser and gibberellic acid
simultaneously to promote on-farm production of high quality pasture (NGibb)
Gibberellic acid is one of a group of Gibberellins (a group of plant hormones that activate dormant enzyme systems). Typically sprayed onto grazed pasture, it can stimulate out of season growth or accelerate growth through reserve mobilisation, and leaf and stem elongation (Matthew, Hofmann & Osborne, 2009, p. 213). The LUDF applies gibberellic acid and nitrogen fertiliser simultaneously to maximise pasture dry matter production. Thirty nine per cent of respondents adopted this
innovation (Table 4.27). Of the 111 respondents, 57 respondents (51 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.35).
Table 4.35 Reasons for adopting/not adopting frequent small application of nitrogen fertiliser and gibberellic acid simultaneously
Reasons for adopting (n= 16) Reasons for not adopting (n= 41) Use gibberellic acid but only at crucial times
of the season, typically in spring and autumn
5 Did use nitrogen fertiliser but did not use gibberellic acid
18 To maximise pasture production and reduce
feed deficits
2 Results too variable and so too costly 8 Did not suit current farm system
(larger more infrequent nitrogen applications, staff capabilities and attitudes, use and cost of contractor to apply)
6
Not as yet but may trial in the future 5 Did not believe in gibberellic acid/
did not know enough about it
2
Other 9 Never heard of gibberellic acid 2
Number of respondents 16 Number of respondents 41
4.4.2.9 Eco-N
TMto mitigate urine nitrogen loss (EcoN)
Dicyandiamide (DCD) is the active ingredient of Ravensdown Fertiliser Ltd.’s product Eco-N, which is applied as a fine particle suspension spray to grazed pastures to control nitrogen losses from cow urine patches (Ravensdown.co.nz, 2013). Thirty three per cent of respondents adopted the use of Eco-NTM (Table 4.27). Of the 110 respondents, 61 respondents (55 per cent) commented on their
decision (Table 4.36). Note: In January 2013, concerns regarding DCD residues in food led to the voluntary suspension of all sales and use of DCD treatments on farm land in New Zealand (MPI, 2013a).
Table 4.36 Reasons for adopting/not adopting Eco-NTM to mitigate urine nitrogen loss
Reasons for adopting (n= 13) Reasons for not adopting (n= 48) Felt it reduced nitrogen losses, it benefitted
the environment and/or increased pasture production
10 Sceptical of the results and science behind the product (possible conflict of interest, variable results, and effectiveness on different soil types)
16
Used on wintering area only 2 Too expensive, represented a poor return on investment
16 Adopted Eco-N as was thought likely to
become a future component of dairy farming
1 Did not suit current farm system i.e. dry land farming
7 Have trialled but due to poorer than expected results did not adopt
6 May adopt depending on future
regulatory requirements surrounding nutrient management
3 Number of respondents 13 Number of respondents 48
4.3.2.10 Synchronising of heifers to calve two weeks before herd (Synchro)
Synchronisation is the practice of pharmaceutically inducing oestrus and ovulation in a group of animals simultaneously, typically to facilitate artificial insemination to control calving date (Xu & Burton, 1999). Twenty one per cent of respondents had adopted the synchronisation of heifers (Table 4.27). Of the 113 respondents, 65 respondents (58 per cent) commented on their decision (Table 4.37).
Table 4.37 Reasons for adopting/not adopting synchronisation of heifers to calve two weeks before herd
Reasons for adopting (n= 19) Reasons for not adopting (n= 46) Did synchronise heifers but choose to start
calving heifers 2-10 days before main herd
13 Preferred no intervention and natural breeding
18 More time for heifers (1st calvers) to cycle and
improved conception rates
4 Did not suit current farm system (added complexity and work load, heifers grazing away)
13 Had always followed this practice 2 Too expensive or thought to have
adverse effects on fertility
6 Tight spring feed supply 2
Other 7